Spy vs. Spy

The analysis continues as to why Romney (and the Republicans in general) lost.  And the Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf has weighed in with an article entitled: How Conservative Media Lost to the MSM and Failed the Rank and File.  The article itself is quite interesting, analyzing acutely the problems at certain conservative outlets.  However, although he identifies many errors committed by conservative media, he does not identify the reason for those errors, and thus misses an opportunity to make the larger, more important point.  

Indeed, listening to the predictions of Noonan or Morris or Scarborough over those of Nate Silver was idiotic.  You shouldn't start making bets when you don't know the rules of the game.  Silver is a gambler, and a highly successful one, not a journalist.  The first three are pundits, commentators and politicos.  They should not be playing the numbers game in any case.  Nevertheless, the Atlantic article misses two important points.  First, the Republicans lost because they fronted some of the worst candidates they could possibly find (and that is saying quite a lot after having allowed Palin on their ticket in '08--she was a strong woman who fought for what she believed; unfortunately she believed Africa was a country).  Second, there is no such thing as conservative media (nor liberal media), if by media you mean an organization responsible for broadcasting the news.  If you intend the fifth estate, a biased news outfit is not a news outfit at all.  Rather it is fictional programming with an agenda.  The only bias of a true newsman is bias towards the truth.

Pundit accountability

I absolutely hate the word wonk--I think in part because it is so ill-defined that anyone can adopt it as a moniker without actually meaning anything (to wit, calling Paul Ryan a numbers wonk--which, as far as I can tell, means that he can count... or not).  Nevertheless, I usually appreciate (which is not to say 'agree with') Ezra Klein, author of Wonk Blog over at the Washington Post.  One of his posts yesterday piqued my interest with a title that included the words pundit and accountability.  Holding pundits accountable is important because, in part, we expect the pundits to hold the politicians accountable.  Nevertheless, after reading Klein's post, I was rather disappointed.  The blog post was not at all about accountability, but about gambling.  Many pundits have made predictions in the last days and weeks based on poll numbers (I've already mentioned Nate Silver and Ari Fleischer in previous posts).  I particularly like Nate Silver, not because I agree with him, but because he is a gambler and not a pundit--you know what you are getting with him.  But the suggestion that the pundit's function is to predict (and in some cases wager, viz., Silver and Joe Scarborough) the outcome of an election is not only wrong headed, it lets the pundits off the hook.  If keeping them accountable is simply a matter of winners and losers (the pundits, that is, not the candidates), then I see no place for pundits in the political process at all.  I am reminded of the bar which introduces gambling machines.  Those sorts of bars become sad and dessicated--no longer are they places for social interaction, but instead are where those who no longer have anything to offer society are put out to pasture.